Refutations of Lavelle's Theory

I have long debated whether I should include a refutation of Lavelle's theory on this site.  Many people believe that he may be mentally disturbed, and they might think it foolish to dignify the "ravings of a madman" with a scientific answer.

But a recent emailer has convinced me that his message deserves a logical answer. It is not enough for me to say that he is wrong, and to quote others who poke fun at and dismiss his beliefs offhand. I must provide scientific proof that his beliefs are incorrect.

This is true irrespective of his perceived mental state, which we cannot judge with certainty yet. There are many people out there who may be inclined to believe his theories. They might interpret a lack of response as, at best, an inability to respond, or at worst a glib, mocking dismissal of the most important message of all time!

Since a few people have already answered his claims, I decided to put their answers on one page. The following are three responses taken from two posts on the Message Board, and from one email I received.

First Refutation

Excerpted from a post by "Mike" on November 03, 1999.

Robert Lavelle's argument is entirely foolish and incorrect. Even a first year physics student can see this.

"E=MC2 The equation for the atom bomb."

Wrong. E = MC^2 is NOT the equation for the atom bomb. There is no "equation" for the atom bomb. As a matter of fact, E = MC^2 has NOTHING to do with the atom bomb.

"It says that matter and energy are the same thing."

Wrong again. E = MC^2 states that an objects total rest energy is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared - Nothing more, nothing less. <snip>

"Take everything in the universe and stop it. Does time progress?"

Yes. Time does progress. The movement of matter throughout the universe has nothing to do with whether or not time continues to progress. For example, let's say you have a brick that has a temperature of -273 Celcius (absolute zero, the temperature at which ALL motion ceases). Now, does time stop for the volume that the brick occupies? No, it doesn't. The same applies for the universe.

"Space moves like this O /\ + \/ O and that is the understand of time."

I will not even bother to comment on this....<snip>

Dear Robert

I received your email for the 4th or 5th time on the same theory of the universe. Everyone knows energy is three dimensional. Even if you look at something as simple as radiation of energy from a point source, is the radiation linear or planar? No! It is clearly spatial.

With all due respect, what you are saying is nothing new. With regard to your statement that the universe is not endless, if the Big Bang THEORY is correct, the universe is indeed expanding and/or oscillating which implies outer boundaries.

However, my main question is this. Do you really plan to bring about the rapture by spreading this nonsense about energy being 3-D and the theory of a finite universe? If God really wanted us to learn about classical physics and basic astronomy before the rapture, why not enroll everyone in physics classes instead of taking them to church?

I am a born again Christian, (and an aerospace engineering student) who believes in the second coming and the rapture and everything else in the Bible. But I don't recall seeing any passage in the Bible which requires believers to understand the physics and thermodynamics of the universe as a criterion for salvation or that this understanding is a catalyst for the rapture and second coming.

Though it is good that you are trying,in your own way, to spread the Gospel, maybe you should rethink your theology, and scientific facts before you spread any more of this misleading non-sense. Preach the Gospel, don't create your own.

Sincerely,

David Choi

Excerpted from an email from "BW". The full text is posted on the Feedback page)

>You know that little Y2K thing where many of the computers
>in the world are just going to shut down on Jan 1.

From someone who is educated about computers, let me correct that statement.
Replace "many" with "a small percentage of" and "shut down" with "have some
date-based buggy problems"

>Well that little problem is going to collapse all the economies >in the world.

Ummm... Hmmm... No. Replace "collapse" with "slightly hinder." There,
that works for me. <snip>

>THE UNIVERSE SPACE ENDS & MOVES O /\ + \/ O
>The discovery of the understanding of the universe.
>E=MC² The equation for the atom bomb.

Either that, or the theory of relativity. Or maybe just a description of
the relationship between energy, matter and time that allowed us (humanity)
to create a bomb as well as other beneficial forms of technology.

> It says that matter and energy
>are the same thing.

No, it says they are related.

>So then what is that? Matter, look at a brick. Its
>in a three dimensional form. Its made of electrons, protons and neutrons
>(atoms) and they are moving so the brick is moving. Energy, sunlight.
>Its in a three dimensional form. It comes to us from the sun therefore
>it is moving. 3D and moving Both matter and energy are 3D and moving.
>I outproduce Einstein. We already know all matter has gravity. The
>bending of light shows that energy also has gravity. So matter and
>energy are 3D moving with gravity. The universe is made of matter,
>energy, time and space. That just stated is the matter and energy part.
>Time and space. Take everything in the universe and stop it. Does time
>progress? No. Therefore time is the motion and the understanding of all
>the motion is the understanding of all of time. Space. Space ends.

OK, you've techo-babbled long enough. Most of what you've wrote is OK
until this part. Current theory states that space doesn't "end", rather it
wraps. Much like the surface of the Earth. It is limited in it's area, but
you can travel infinitely on it. Weird, but it makes sense.

> Space
>does not go on forever. Space is in a three dimensional form. Space
>moves

no.

> but does not have gravity. Space moves like this. O /\ + \/ O
>And that is the understanding of time.
> O This is what was first, in the beginning.
> /\ This is the old kings and queens.
> + This is democracy.
> \/ This is socialism.
> O This is when the Lord Jesus Christ returns.

Ok, big time problems with this one. First, no proof or way of even
attempting to prove that equation. I could say J=pb*b, where J=Jelly,
pb=Peanut Butter, and B=Bread, but that does not make it so. If we examine
the equation and multiply two breads with one jelly and make them equal,
then we have two jellies. Both this and your equation make as much sense.

Secondly, how EXACTLY does this tie into einstein or the Y2K problem? Ever
hear of putting things in CONTEXT? Let me give you an example:

WRONG:
I went to the zoo and saw a lion. I got into an accident on the way
home. I therefore ate pizza for breakfast.

RIGHT:
I went to the zoo and saw a lion. While thinking about the lion on the
way home I got into an accident. Because the accident was my fault, I had
no money left for groceries and ate leftover pizza for breakfast.

See? The first one makes no sense, but the second one puts things in
context. I will not summarily dismiss your claims, but I will state that
you have not expressed them coherently. <snip>

On a final note, people have been predicting the end of things from the
beginning.  Now if life as we know it comes to an end, it will only do this
once, right?  So the only thing that will make prophets of destruction
correct, assuming that the end will come, is their proximity to it.  Please
let me know what distinguishes your prediction of doom from all those that
have came before you so that I may believe the accuracy of yours.